Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  07/08/2012 12:47 AM Report

"JohnHanley", ..I respect your decision to put your actual name upon your thought products here. As with John Gelles, I respect you for your honest courage.

But I am having difficulty finding your thesis statement here!

I hear you muse that "Justice Roberts did no favor for Barack Obama", but your argument is brought with only "eyes-closed" support -- You consistently ignore the fact that almost EVERY SINGLE THING that the President asked for within those 2,800 pages of "Democrats give you free stuff" legislation was allowed to be implemented, with the sole exception of the President's requested right to hold a knife to the throat of any state that does not agree to pay for his Medicaid expansion from their state budgets.

(Thank God for little favors!!)

Oh, ..and the "Continuing economic data" is NOT as "poor" as you say it is. That widely published data actually shows -- with high quality -- that this is the absolute worst performance of our national economy out of any of the last TEN recessions!!!

The WORST job growth of all of those 10, ..the WORST GDP growth in all of those 10.

If that doesn't get through as a "difference" to you in the Democrat versus, say, Paul Ryan's Republican budgetary stewardship, ..what would, John????

Sooner or later, please, ..take a stand! ..and VOTE with pride!!!!

JohnHanley  07/07/2012 02:44 PM Report

Since the discussion has gone off topic, I'll make these my last comments on the subject.

While the news media has mostly touted the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act as a victory for the Obama admininistration and the Democratic Party agenda in general, the Court's decision to rule the Federal goverment's attempt to enforce the law using the Commerce Clause leaves serious doubts as to what direction the Democrats will turn to achieve thier aims.

Continuing poor economic data, including a report at the beginning of this week on contraction in manufacturing which was met by calls for another round of quantitative easing underscore the problem. Any idiot could see this makes no sense. What's the goverment going to do, tax people to give them health care, then tax them again for a program of stimulus that can't work, since now they have no way to control where the money goes (which is most likely what Democratic politicians wanted by taking up health care in the first place;nobody cares about my health)? Not to mention the fact that bankers still have first dibs on any money spent on quantitative easing for the kind of speculation that just cost JP Morgan Chase 2 billion dollars.

Thankfully, the Republican Party has not added any more to this annoying cycle of news by pretending they actually care. While firmly opposing any effort ordinary people have made to get thier lives on track, they have failed to suggest any measures of thier own that would make any real difference, such as re-instituting something like the Glass-Steagal Act.

While America slowly goes down the drain, people all over the country are arguing about what made up version of reality to pretend is happening. On the bright side, bumper sitcker slogan writers are doing huge buisness.

NeilMacCallister  07/07/2012 12:51 PM Report

So you can find differences between "numerical equality" and "proportional equality", yet you can see no difference between Republican goals and Democrat goals?

"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them." (T.P.)

Justice Roberts has just allowed the 'Government class' to set up a table in the emergency rooms of America and force the sale of their insurance plan upon our hospital-goers.

Why does the government want to do this? ..because that's where the money is! (This government venture will create lots more government jobs to be filled by people who will then vote Democrat in order to keep those jobs.)

***

Here in California, Gov. Jerry Brown just rail-roaded a 'High Spend Train' right through our state's farmland. This train will cost $100 Billion dollars! (..that's a MINIMUM to be sure!!!)

That's about $3 Million dollars a foot, from San Francisco to L.A.!!

California's credit rating has fallen to 'A-', and we do have whole cities now filing bankruptcies -- but raises are still being discussed for these 'New Order' legislators; and new hires of Democrat-voting "transportation engineers" are now being drawn up to help consume this "Damn the torpedoes!" money.

***

Oh well, as always, "Have a nice day!" .. :)

JohnHanley  07/06/2012 01:19 PM Report

Mr. MacCallister,

I have to admit, I'm experiencing a little anxiety about responding to your comment. Having entered the fray, I feel stranded at the wall alone. Yet since the object is important, I'll press on, hopefully to emerge relatively unharmed like Coriolanus rather than meet the fate of Uriah. Having done so though, I will follow the example of another Roman, Marcus Aureileus (not to mention Christ), and acquiesce to the law.

I feel you have misunderstood my comments. I never intended to express approbation of Keynes' veiws, I was only stating what they are.

To expand on my comments a bit, I think I'll mention that political equality is usually concieved of in two ways, proportional equality, and numerical equality. The former is to be understood as equal work for equal pay, the later, employs an external standard of some kind. Take for example equal pay for women, the proponents of the first view would say that women should be payed the same amount for the same work, the other view would say that women should also be compensated with consideration to their gender, that perhaps if they wanted to take leave to have children thier employers should continue to compensate them, and that afterwards they should be considered for promotion without regard to the fact that they have taken time off.

Without any consideration of the merits of either argument, I would first of all say that Democrats tend to fall into the second group in thier veiws, and that this view, that is numerical equality, requires a greater degree of goverment control to make it workable. That's why I said that the Supreme Court ruling on health care was a setback for the Obama administration, because when Colin Powell called Barack Obama a "transformational figure", it was a transformation on this level that he was talking about, and as the ruling limits Congressional power under the Commerce clause I don't think it's possible now for him to do it now, if it ever was.

As for the historical evidence, I would like to know more, if I can add it to the things I'm already studying. Of particular interest would be the case that has been sited as a precident to the goverments arguments about the use of the commerce clause, Wickard v. Filburn. If the same judicial standard were applied in 1942, we should have a law now, not only that people were required to use more wheat to keep the price high, but even that they be required to have more children to insure consumption remained high. This is obviously absurd, but it's true isn't it? It underscores the idea that the Democratic party was probably seeking a much greater power than the one they wound up with.

Speaking of voting, I can't say much for either party Mr. Macallister, if you'll pardon my inabillity to express the same kind of partisan sentiment you seem to have. I think Hayek was right in what he wrote about freedom for the individual, but neither party seems to represent that.

NeilMacCallister  07/06/2012 03:53 AM Report

JohnHanley, the scariest thing you just wrote is that economic policies are "dependant on a specific cultural milleu". No! .."We Are All Created Equal".

It is our governments which force natural human beings into horrible disfigurements. Most notably it has been the world's "Socialist" governments: Nazi Germany (10 million killed), Stalin's Russia (20 million killed), Mao's China (40 million killed!!!)

As Hayek wrote: "It is not those who preach a 'New Order' who build a better world. Those that cry the loudest for the New Order have created most of the evils from which we suffer. A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy."

So, Mr. Hanley, do you want to consider the historical evidence? ..or do you choose to just vote for the larger and more forceful government that the current administration hopes you will allow it to become???

JohnHanley  07/05/2012 01:18 PM Report

Neil,

Thank you for mentioning my post. In the first place, I should correct the preceeding post I made. What I meant to say, is that Chief Justice Roberts first said the mandate was a penalty and then later called it a tax.

The issue is very relevant for the Obama administration. I'm not an economist, but I think the president's economic policies are heavilly influenced by an economist named Keynes, a British man who came up with his theories about economic stimulus after WWI. A chief critisism of his theories was made by this other guy, a German I think, named Hayek, who said that the policies were dependant on a specific cultural milleu. I guess the analogy would be something like the piston in a car engine; put some gas in the cylinder and the combustion exerts enough force to move the car, but put the same amount of gas on a dinner plate and ignite it, and the force is dissapated.

I think the Supreme Court rulling is a major setback for the Obama administration, even though noone is spinning it that way. Remember, that even before Obama was elected he was talking about health care as a right. Recall the loans to Solyndra, and legislation on equal pay for women. The Democratic Party has a single cultural vision for this country which depended very greatly on the use of the Commerce clause, not the power of taxation, to achieve it's effect, and the Supreme Court has put it completely out of his reach.

Only this week reports on the contraction of manufacturing were met with calls by some for quantitative easing, which I believe is a form of stimulus where the goverment buys stuff from the banks so they can loan the cash to small buisneses and consumers. But how will this work? It's becomeing a monster that eats itself, and no matter what anyone wants to say about it it's going to change.

I think the result is fair, because what it says is within the Congress' power to do, that is,tax income from any source, without having to apportion it to the states. They can do it, but whether it's wise to do is another matter.

I see your point, but I believe the Federal goverment has a very important role to serve in people's lives, and the decision is balanced.

NeilMacCallister  07/05/2012 02:15 AM Report

The CBO has said that the path upon which President Obama is driving America puts a balanced national budget out of America's reach FOREVER.

JohnHanley says that result is "fair" in his comment below.

John Gelles gives President Obama a "right" to do this.

But gagging America to death on a ham sandwich of unpayable bills is no one's "right"; and is certainly not "fair", neither to our forebears, nor to our "Posterity".

I suggest this "death by a thousand taxes" is blatantly both an "unreasonable seizure" and a "deprivation of property".

How can it be? ..That we know this behavior will kill us, and yet we claim that it is somehow "Constitutional" for our Congress to cast these down-dragging seizures and deprivations upon America???

JohnHanley  07/03/2012 01:43 PM Report

I agree with Mr. Tribe that Chief Justice Roberts decision was fair, but as the story plays out in the media, I wonder if it's correct to say the decision really upholds the individual mandate at all.

An examination of the way the Tax Anti-Injunction Act relates to the ruling is illuminating. Recall that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act says, briefly, that redress for an unjust tax can't be made untill after the tax is paid. The first arguments that the court heard were on this subject, and the parties apparently decided that it was not a tax, but a penalty. Unless I am mistaken, that is what the Federal goverment argued, that the intent of the law was to impose a penalty for inactivity, to use the Commerce Clause to mandate people to buy insurance.

What Chief Justice Roberts decided, however was significantly different, and changes what might have been a tiger in the hands of Liberal legislators into nothing more than a kitten. What the Chief Justice has said is that the government may not mandate people to buy insurance or anything else, but that they may adjust the way that people's incomes are taxed, so that people who don't have insurance pay slightly more income tax.

This is not a small difference. The reason Chief Justice Roberts has said that the so-called "mandate" was considered a penalty at the begining of the proceedings and then later considered it a penalty, is that it has it's force against income, not people. The penalty changes the way people are taxed, and there doesn't seem to me to be any resriction on that in the Constitition, but penalizing people for inactivity seems completely unheard of.

Think of what that would have meant for Liberal causes like anti-discimination and affimative action. If a person is found to be guilty of discriminating against someone for housing for instance based on race now, they are violating Federal law, but if the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce clause a law could be passed by which a person could not only be guilty of a crime for refusing to rent to the person the government tells them to, but even for not renting a property they had no intention of renting, on the grounds that Congress is regulating commerce consistant with the general welfare of the country.

I am convinced that Chief Justice Roberts ruling is a very elegant use of the function of our countrys judiciary. With it, he has upheld the power of the Congress to tax income without apportionment to the several states, which is a power the Conservatives seem to oppose, and at the same time kept a frightening power out of the hands of politicians, who at this point in our history are admited by all obervers to be quite deficient in the proper exercise of thier powers.

blank  07/02/2012 06:39 PM Report

sorry about that other message just disregard

http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_20976448/cu-boulder-ancient-human-relative-had-diet-similar

somebody gave me some wood chips that they got at a grocery store so i've been trying to eat those sometimes it's hard but as long as the pieces aren't too big it's pretty good

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/garden/finding-flavor-in-the-weeds.html

definitely a cookbook to get i think you really should research it first though

http://www.meadowsandmore.com/

notice this is about eating your weeds rather than using chemicals to kill them and massive amounts of water to grow something else instead

NOT about going into nature and cutting down and burning all of the trees as fast as possible

if you have a house with an underwater mortgage maybe try growing some food (everybody i've talked to who have gardens say they get too much food to eat and donate a lot of it to local restaurants and other places)

maybe focus on organic native species get a good system in place (combine it with composting of what you bring in to replenish your soil)

lobby your city to allow food to be grown between the sidewalk and the street (it makes the place and the environment substantially nicer too - and maybe you can sell some of it at the farmer's market)

if you think about it if the house is underwater and the bank repossesses they can't sell it for the amount of the loan (by definition) so they should cut some deal to lower the monthly payments

like go in and say look i'm paying $250K and you could only sell the place for $200K so let's make a deal and put it at $225K (that would be a win win situation for both people rather than a lose lose)

except for the person who buys the house at $200K that would be a win

anyway i'm trying to buy a bike for $70 right now i offered $30 more than the $40 asking price i really hope i can get it (i'll have to travel all day by bus to get it - another benefit of public transportation high speed rail etc)

i'm going to use it to rehabilitate and get healthier so i can escape from this torture trap i'm in

me personally i spend 100% of ALL income on health care

(i don't know why i can't accomplish anything over email -> i'm just going back to reality)

http://www.rivbike.com/Articles.asp?ID=286 (bridgestone was racing-centric)

i shouldn't have mentioned about traveling probably seemed too strange for a $40 bike (i just specifically need this exact model and year in this color because it has an extra 5mm reach and exactly matches the geometry of my bike)

okay email is a complete failure i'm going to try to conduct everything in person or on the phone for now on in life whenever possible

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18613263

Gelles  07/02/2012 05:30 AM Report

Neil MacCallister~

You must remember that in 1939 America had very little money and/or income and hardly any military might. We started from scratch. We printed the money and produced the desired results.

Today we have the experience and technology to solve every problem you raised. But we can do nothing if the people do not vote to implement FDR's economic rights, Keynes' output-based money, and Lincoln's purpose to make government serve the best instincts of the human race not its worst.

Gelles  07/02/2012 05:17 AM Report

Neil MacCallister~

People say we did right in WW II because we had to. The same is true today. We have to demand and supply the needs of a rational and decent American nation. Individuals, dis-united, cannot wage peace or war effectively. Nations have a purpose. Ours is as you have pointed out.

Gelles  07/02/2012 05:08 AM Report

Neil MacCallister~

Thanks for the greeting.

The Second Bill of Rights proposed by FDR in January 1944 guarantees American jobs and economic democracy forever -- if the people want them.

It's not too late to invest in ourselves and do all you suggest in your posting here.

FDR proposed the law. Maynard Keynes proposed the money system to make the law practical. Our leaders and our voters have signaled they are too ignorant to be applauded.

Our central bank can manage the money it will take to supply all the production YOU and I know we must DEMAND be performed by American union labor.

Unions and management must be held accountable by WE the voters. We need to elect lawmakers who will follow the rules we used in WW II to produce all we need to win every peace and war and bring economic democracy to this world.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/02/2012 01:18 AM Report

Now we have the law--and the judgement on the law--here is the key:

50% of healthcare cost in America comes from 5% of the people.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/15/zakaria-5-of-u-s-patients-account-for-50-of-health -care-costs/

Time to draft our 5% into prevention and/or cost containment.

NeilMacCallister  07/01/2012 03:17 PM Report

Mr. Gelles, we already spend much more per person than other nations on healthcare, and at a spending rate nearly doubling since 1980; but both our life expectancies and our national credit rating are now falling.

HealthCare is a product, a service, which is consumed. To "support" that consumption, we need national economic income. National economic income comes from the production of saleable goods (from person to person within a country, or from the U.S.A. to other nations.)

Where is our growth in production which will make your HealthCare dreams "affordable"??? ..Congress has adamantly refused to invest in anything even approaching a "saleable good", and they refuse to let the manufacturing community pursue those products themselves.

President Obama just told me to go buy some health insurance, but I work a minimum wage job, and have an underwater mortgage ("Gee, Thanks Mr. President!")

Nearby, California is building a new bridge from Oakland to San Francisco. Yet, while there are several closed steel mills twenty-minutes away, the State has decided to buy the steel from China! ("Gee, Thanks Mr. Schwarzenegger!")

I don't want to go stand in line to let my Senator pay her hire $1,000 dollars to take my blood pressure. I'd rather work a productive job so that I can AFFORD to purchase the reasonably-priced health services that I want.

Where are those jobs, John???

Gelles  07/01/2012 05:55 AM Report

Health care is what America must provide on a standard second to none. Congress is the place to find law that supports this goal. The supreme court is our tool to prevent injustice not ill health.

The Roberts Court was on a path to earn a fat "F" in justice and intelligence. Roberts, as a human being did not see advantage to the people or his legacy of keeping that fat "F". So he came up with an "A+" escape from judicial blunder. Thank you Mr. Chief Justice. The people would like to see an end to Quixotic laws and judicial reviews. But that desire will remain denied for now. We do not know how to achieve it.

NeilMacCallister  07/01/2012 01:12 AM Report

topaz?? ..Who was asked to pay for the loaves and fishes given out by Jesus?

Did Jesus levy a tax (..or a "penalty") in order to pay for those charitable givings?

Did Jesus demand that Caesar provide those fish which Jesus delivered to the crowds?

Or did he tell us that God does provide, and that we should have faith?

You would help your neighbor, wouldn't you?

What makes you think that Barack Obama (or Warren Buffett) is more caring than you?

NeilMacCallister  06/30/2012 11:37 PM Report

Sorry tabs, ..John Roberts did NO one a "favor". Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito all stood up for the letter of the law, ..and "Chief" Justice Roberts folded.

Was this a "tax", and therefore required by law to be initiated in the House? ..then why was SENATOR Ted Kennedy thanked for delivering this bill??

You remember Ted, ..he was the Massachusetts Senator, and Harvard sponsor, who walked Barack Obama out upon the Democrat's national stage!

I'll bet you $10 bucks (..twice my 'Obama 2012' hourly salary) that HealthCare is no more "affordable" next year -- or 5 or 10 years from now -- than it is today!

The only "change" we have been delivered; is that now the U.S. government gets to join in the line with the insurance companies, the hospitals, and our medical staff unions for a piece of that oh so totally-fat healthcare pie!!

Uhm! ..Uhm! ..Uhmmm!

tabs  06/30/2012 09:12 PM Report

Perhaps Barrack Obama should not be so quick in assuming that the Chief Justice did him any favors. For the comment that keeps rattling around is the Chief Justices, “It is not our job to save the people from the consequences of their electoral choices.” In essence the Chief Justice found a way to punt the ball back to the American people, leaving it for them to decide in the November election whether or not to let Obama Care stand. Further the Chief Justices affirmation of Obama Care being a "TAX" is to tie a tin can around President Obama's tail as now he is stuck with the label of being a TAX AND SPEND President. After all the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court has said so. Also by making the "mandate" into a Tax will make it easier for the Republicans to dismantle Obama Care as now it only requires 51 votes in the Senate. So the Chief Justice set it up for the American People to make the decision of whether or not they want Obama Care or NOT?

topazgirl  06/30/2012 06:02 PM Report

I was raised to think that the US Supreme Court Justices were akin to God when it came to US constitutional interpretation... The Gore/Bush decision and the Citizens United decision changed all that, for me. This decision today redeemed them, somewhat, in my eyes... Fairness, compassion, and the welfare of ALL of America's citizens should trump money and selfishness EVERY time! That IS the spirit of the US Constitution. I am not a Christian, but I DO think Jesus was a pretty smart and compassionate guy. If Christians were to truly ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", I think THIS is it! Otherwise, what was the "message" of the "Good Samaritan" supposed to be about? Ironically, our "Conservative Christians" are AGAINST this Act, for the most part, and ignore that parable that is supposed to mean so much to them... Strange!....

JohnHanley  06/30/2012 02:12 PM Report

I have been largely dissapointed with the level of discourse on this subject, and I believe Chief Justice Roberts'decision on the matter is the clearest, most reasonable statement made so far.

To begin with, the goverment's argument that Congress has power to compel citizens to buy health insurance under the commerce clause are poorly constructed. Consider the use of Wickard v. Filburn as a precident. It seems that the goverment has it wrong to say that Mr. Filburn was analogous to the insured, since he appeared before the court qua producer, not qua consumer. The correct analogy would be if insurance companies provided thier employees with free insurance and somehow that was found to affect the price of insurance for everyone else. What the government would be arguing by using this case as a precident would be as if Wickard had sued the goverment to mandate that all child-bearing citizens have more children in order to raise the demand for wheat, thereby keeping prices high. To call this a novel approach to law is an understatement.

On the other hand, I don't see any restriction at all on how Congress can tax people if they deem it to be in the interest of the "general welfare" of the country, consistant with the power given them by section 8, clause 1. An objection to this is made concerning section 7 clause 1 which stipulates all laws for raising revenue must originate in the House, but since income tax already exists, why can't the Congress simply impose a penalty on those who don't have insurance? They don't seem to be making a new law, but altering an existing one.

The President, in taking credit for a legislative achievment seems to be casting himeslf in the role of the head of a legislative body, like a Prime Minister, and the Congress people who supported the law are assuming unwaranted executive power in trying assert that under the commerce clause they can require citzens to purchase a product of any kind. The President's recent decision not to enforce immigration law highlights this seemingly unusual interpretation of the powers of our goverment. Only the Judiciary under Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing out it's proper role here.

This is most likely related to the politics involved with re-election. I think no one wants to take responsibility for what they're actually doing, and the results are a little ugly. I hope history sees the matter in a better light than I do.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/30/2012 02:35 AM Report

PRECEDENT WITH COMMERCE CLAUSE:

Congress mandated that Americans purchase privately sold products:

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[...]

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays.

And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves.

That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

That’s from Einer Elhauge, a professor at Harvard Law, who continues, “not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional.”

Also of note: unlike the mandate to buy muskets, the maritime mandates were exercised under the Commerce Clause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

Life is funny isn't it Charlie?

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/30/2012 02:32 AM Report

As Justice Scalia asked during oral arguments: if Congress can force you to buy health insurance, can they also force you to buy broccoli?

The answer is yes and George Washington did it as Laurence tells us.

Militia Acts of 1792 (excerpted)

That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder . . .

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/30/2012 02:17 AM Report

He might have oversold the Chief Justice.

Suppose this becomes a middle class tax increase?

Then the Chief Justice may have just decided the election in November.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/30/2012 02:12 AM Report

Yes, four Justices who wanted to throw the whole thing out is a very scary thought in itself.

What a mess that would have been.

How Americans might have been a tad angry.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/30/2012 02:08 AM Report

Yes, it is a day to restore credibility to the Court after giving us a lost decade with a bad Presidential ruling and also making our election process a joke with a really, really terrible, terrible ruling letting corporations become people in elections.

REMant  06/29/2012 12:10 PM Report

As I said when it was announced, this law could not be defended under the Commerce Clause. No argument was made regarding its appropriateness under the Welfare clause, which I think also debatable, altho that seems to have been long conceded, and to suggest otherwise would severely restrict the Court's scope.

Regarding the claim of its being defensible under the taxing authority, the Constitution says: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken," except, by the 16th Amendment, that on incomes. One does not impose insurance requirements via a Census, hence in no way was insurance ever conceived of as a tax. It seems Roberts agreed with that. The Constitution also says "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" but doesn't include direct taxes because they are to be made uniform by being levied uniformly on individuals to begin with. The 16th Amendment changed all that.

Roberts acknowledges that the income tax code has become a means to regulate commerce, but finds this okay by precedent. It is not okay. The tax argument is wrong for the same reason the Commerce Clause argument is. What this or any past court did or believed is irrelevant. The United States is not an historical entity. If it were, it would not have a fundamental law. The Constitution is not a birth certificate, it purports to be a social covenant, if not one which the ppl as a whole have ever voted on, in this generation or any other. The Convention and the Constitution conceived of taxes to be either direct, in which case, equal, or indirect, in which case levied uniformly on trade. A penalty was not a tax, nor was a tax to be a penalty.

No doubt the govt feels that to be equal all should join the proposed system, and that seems fair enough, but it can't coerce them into fairness. That must be left to their own recognizance. No one yet proposes (I hope) sensitivity-training for all Americans to avoid crime. No doubt the govt feels health care to be a public good, but it can't be made a public good through its manner of funding, nor can it simply be ordered without funding. It certainly cannot be made into a welfare issue merely because the penalty for non-compliance will be collected by the IRS.

The precedent here lies with the colonial, and later, state militia laws, which required participation or a penalty. But those were states, not the Federal govt, whose own was met with riots when attempted in 1863. Roberts was wrong to cite tariffs in this respect (and a liberal economic historian at that). There is no doubt the means to the regulation of commerce included them, or that customs had long been used to fund the monarchy, but those taxes were not ipso facto a program (or a provision of general welfare), and it is still regulation of commerce.

But the admin wanted to set up a system that for political as much as fanciful theoretical reasons had to include private insurance cos and thereby avoid an up or down vote on public provision, which is what got it into this pickle. It underscores the disingenuous, backhanded way things are done in this country.

This case illustrates the evil inherent in the 16th Amendment. Arguably it was never intended in 1909 that the income tax should be used in the way it has been. That seems clear enough by just looking at the first tax form. It is in direct contravention to the sentiment in Convention that taxes not be used to inequitably regulate commerce, and which had played a major part in causing the Revolution. It is insufficient to say as Roberts does that since the Court is available for redress this is not a power to destroy.

The govt has similarly long used grants to the states for the same ends, and although a majority struck down the Medicaid mandate the admin says it will persevere and just partially punish them...err, tax them.

Not only does this point up that Mr Justice Roberts is no libertarian, but also, since I don't have to be respectful, is entirely consistent with his being a Catholic, subsidiarity notwithstanding. He sees nothing wrong with a system of incentives, even if in the guise of punishments. For instance, as a rat preses a bar to avoid a shock. Unless, of course, he is simply spineless, or with the rest of the majority in need of remedial education. The only other possibility is that, believing health care dead for a generation had he not spared it, he expected the admin to take steps to improve it. But he has by this inanity clearly made it harder.

Congress could now pass a flat tax closing this avenue to public coercion and making it clear again what a tax is, but that will now, of course, be resisted more than ever, even though Obamacare is practically unworkable as it now stands, and, as the dissent points out, certainly unequal. The decision probably helps Gov Romney more than it helps the president's re-election, as well, since libertarians will have no choice but to vote for the former, and take their chances. And its use of tortuous illogic has brought the Court and the legal profession into even further disrepute. Lawyers may like to see themselves as crusaders in the cause of liberty, but the public, going back centuries, hasn't.

Is it too much to ask our lawmakers to change course and start governing with justice AND liberty for all? Think again about swapping a flat tax for a better regulated insurance or health system, which coerces nobody?

BTW, the Court did not say a thing about the several advantages of the ACA Pelley ticked off echoing the president's propaganda, typical of his own overreach, while Tribe is, of course, as much an authoritarian as any in the Federalist Society, (and who, incidentally, appears to have avoided Vietnam-era military service). The discussion of free-ridership figures not at all in Roberts' opinion, except, of course, that it was the admin's justification, being essential to the principle of insurance, since you can't charge ppl for something that's free. I know the decision and dissent were quite long, but they were quite accessible, including a detailed summary, so there's little excuse for engaging in discussion of what you have not read. Washington may have forgotten himself regarding militias, but that set no precedent nor revealed any original intent and two years later his party passed the Alien & Sedition Acts. I would think at the moment Roberts is being compared with Earl Warren more than John Marshall, like the latter only in his unabashed legal chicanery. And it is, I trust, simply conceit to suppose the chief justice should worry about how he appears to people like Prof Tribe.

miltoneaton  06/29/2012 11:51 AM Report

I found Laurence Tribe the most offensive, bigoted guest I have ever seen on your show. His comments were not in any way balanced. I would hate to have had such a professor when I attended school.